101 innovations in scholarly communication - results from eifl partner countries

INNOVATIONS IN SCHOLARLY

COMMUNICATION – RESULTS

FROM EIFL COUNTRIES

ROM Y B E A R D & I R Y N A

K U C HM A

EIFL General Assembly Chisinau, Moldova 20 November 2016

101 INNOVATIONS IN

SCHOLARLY

COMMUNICATION

• Survey looking at changes in researchSurvey looking at changes in researchSurvey looking at changes in researchSurvey looking at changes in researchworkflows and how libraries can supportworkflows and how libraries can supportworkflows and how libraries can supportworkflows and how libraries can supportthemthemthemthem

• Survey conducted May 2015 to Feb 2016Survey conducted May 2015 to Feb 2016Survey conducted May 2015 to Feb 2016Survey conducted May 2015 to Feb 2016

• Based at the University of Utrecht, TheBased at the University of Utrecht, TheBased at the University of Utrecht, TheBased at the University of Utrecht, TheNetherlandsNetherlandsNetherlandsNetherlands

• https://https://https://https://101innovations.wordpress.com101innovations.wordpress.com101innovations.wordpress.com101innovations.wordpress.com

• At the EIFL GA in Riga in 2015, Bianca At the EIFL GA in Riga in 2015, Bianca At the EIFL GA in Riga in 2015, Bianca At the EIFL GA in Riga in 2015, Bianca Kramer talked about the surveyKramer talked about the surveyKramer talked about the surveyKramer talked about the survey

• Looking at research as a cycle, from Looking at research as a cycle, from Looking at research as a cycle, from Looking at research as a cycle, from preparation to discovery > analysis > preparation to discovery > analysis > preparation to discovery > analysis > preparation to discovery > analysis > writing > publication > outreach > writing > publication > outreach > writing > publication > outreach > writing > publication > outreach > assessmentassessmentassessmentassessment

• As libraries we need to be aware of the As libraries we need to be aware of the As libraries we need to be aware of the As libraries we need to be aware of the tools our researchers use, and support tools our researchers use, and support tools our researchers use, and support tools our researchers use, and support themthemthemthem

Slide taken from

Brianca Kramer’s

presentation at the

EIFL GA 2015.

Utrecht University

Library

The Netherlands

HOW LIBRARIES CAN

SUPPORT RESEARCHERS

UniversiUtrecht

(except logos)

101 Innovations in scholarly communication

Re-designing research support services

Bianca Kramer & Jeroen Bosman,

Internet Librarian International, London, October 19, 2016

@MsPhelps

@jeroenbosman

reviewing

data management

plans before they

are submitted to

funders

purchase databases/

resources specific to

researchers needs

teaching reference

management tools to

researchers and

students

support for students

how to write

(not just cite)

running writing clubs,

productivity

workshops and write

boot camps

1-1 support on “how

do I publish my thesis

Open Access”

Open Access

repository: help with

deposit & author

rights

post-publication

sharing workshop

systematic reviews

1-1 support on

blogging, social

media, metrics, data

visualisation etc.

citation service

Library support services

A model of the research workflow

preparation

analysis

writingpublication

outreach

assessment discovery

discovery analysis writing publication outreach assessment→ → → →→preparation →

reviewing

data management

plans before they

are submitted to

funders

purchase

databases/

resources specific

to researchers

needs

teaching reference

management tools to

researchers and

students

support for

students

how to write

(not just cite)

running writing

clubs, productivity

workshops and

write boot camps

1-1 support on

“how do I publish

my thesis Open

Access”

Open Access

repository: help

with deposit &

author rights

post-publication

sharing

workshop

systematic

reviews

1-1 support on

blogging, social


visualisation etc.

citation

service


preparation

analysis

writingpublication

outreach


Rounds of grant writing

and application

Iterations of

search and reading

Drafting, receiving

comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review,

rejection,

resubmitting

Rounds of

experiments and

measurements

discovery analysis writing

publication outreach assessment

Research practices

discovery analysis writing publication outreach assessment→ → → →→preparatio

n→

reviewing

data management

plans before they

are submitted to

funders

purchase

databases/

resources specific

to researchers

needs

teaching reference

management tools to

researchers and

students

support for

students

how to write

(not just cite)

running writing

clubs, productivity

workshops and

write boot camps

1-1 support on

“how do I publish

my thesis Open

Access”

Open Access

repository: help

with deposit &

author rights

post-publication

sharing

workshop

systematic

reviews

1-1 support on

blogging, social


visualisation etc.

citation

service

Support services & relevant research practices


preparation

analysis

writingpublication

outreach


Rounds of grant writing

and application

Iterations of

search and reading

Drafting, receiving

comments,rewriting

Submit, peer review,

rejection,

resubmitting

Rounds of

experiments and

measurements

Amount of tools used across workflowmay seem overwhelming and chaotic

But librarians are good at puttingthe pieces together and making sense of it

Tools database

http://bit.ly/innoscholcomm-list

The survey

17 research activities

20,663 respondents

Data sharing

http://101innovations.wordpress.com

Dataset Data Note ScriptsDashboard

RESPONSES FROM EIFL

COUNTRIES

- 674 responses from 38 countries674 responses from 38 countries674 responses from 38 countries674 responses from 38 countries

- 17% Ukraine, 15% Poland, 6% Ghana

- 20,663 responses overall20,663 responses overall20,663 responses overall20,663 responses overall

Albania, 0%

Algeria, 1%

Argentina

, 4%

Armenia, 0%

Australia, 20%

Austria, 3%Azerbaijan, 0%

Bahamas, 1%Bahrain, 0%

Bangladesh, 0%

Barbados,

0%

Belarus, 1%

Belgium, 5%

Belize, 0%

Benin, 0%Bolivia, 0%

Bosnia and

Herzegovina, 0%

Botswana

, 0%

Brazil, 17%

Brunei, 0%

Bulgaria, 1%

Burkina Faso, 0%

Burundi,

0%Cabo Verde, 0%

Cambodia, 0%

Cameroon, 0%

Canada, 15%

Central African

Republic, 0%

Chile, 3%

China, 16%

Colombia, 5%

Congo, 0%Costa

Rica, 1%

Côte D'Ivoire, 0%

Croatia, 1%

Cuba, 0%

Cyprus, 1%

Czech

Republic,

4%

Overall responses (20,663)

Nepal, 1%

Malawi, 1%

Zambia,

1% Botswana, 1%

Latvia, 1%

Palestine, 1%Zimbabwe, 1%

Sudan, 1%

Bosnia and

Herzegovina,

1%

Ethiopia, 2%

Moldova, 2%

Uganda, 2%

Tanzania, 2%

Georgia, 2%

Lithuania, 2%

Estonia, 3%

Kenya, 4%

Macedonia

, 4%

Belarus, 4%

Algeria, 4%

Serbia, 5%Slovenia, 5%

Thailand, 6%

Ghana, 6%

Poland, 15%

Ukraine, 17%

EIFL responses (674)

RESEARCH AREA

Physical Sciences11%

Engineering &

Technology13%

Life Sciences14%

Medicine11%

Social Sciences33%

Law2%

Arts &Humaniti

es16%

EIFL responses

Physical Sciences, 10%

Engineering & Technology,

15%

Life Sciences, 20%

Medicine, 15%

Social Sciences, 25%

Law, 2%Arts

&Humanities, 13%

Overall responses

6 AREAS OF THE

RESEARCH WORKFLOW

1.1.1.1. DiscoveryDiscoveryDiscoveryDiscovery

2.2.2.2. AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis

3.3.3.3. WritingWritingWritingWriting

4.4.4.4. PublicationPublicationPublicationPublication

5.5.5.5. OutreachOutreachOutreachOutreach

6.6.6.6. AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

DiscoveryDiscoveryDiscoveryDiscovery

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1. What tools/sites do you use to get access

to literature/data etc?

% of total EIFL responses

% of total overall responses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2. What tools/sites do you use to search

literature/data etc?



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

3. What tools/sites do you use to get

alerts/recommendations?



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

4. What tools/sites do you use to

read/review/annotate?


% of total overall

responses

AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1. What tools/sites do you use to analyse

data/text?


% of total overall

responses

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2. Tools/sites do you use to share

notebooks/protocols/workflows?



WritingWritingWritingWriting

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


write/prepare your manuscripts?



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2. What tools/sites do you use for reference

management?



Which reference management tool(s)should the library support?

PublicationPublicationPublicationPublication

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


archive/share publications?



0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2. What tools/sites do you use to archive

data & code?


% of total overall

responses

Do researchers support Open Science in theory ?

i.e. openly creating, sharing and assessing research, wherever viable

Do researchers support Open Science in practice?

4358 of 14896 respondents answered this question (29,3 %)

Do researchers support Open Science in practice?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3. What tools/sites do you use to decide

which journal to submit your

manuscript to?



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

4. What tools/sites do you use to publish?



OutreachOutreachOutreachOutreach

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1. What tools/sites do you use to archive

posters & presentations?



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2. What tools/sites do you use to tell about

your research outside academia?



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3. What researcher profiles do you use?



AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

1. What tools/sites do you use for peer

review beyond that organized by journals?



0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2. What tools/sites do you use to measure

impact?


% of total overall

responses

Do researchers and librarians think the same about tools for measuring impact ?

TOOLS THAT WE’RE

BEHIND ON

• Institutional access: 87% overall, 71% EIFL Institutional access: 87% overall, 71% EIFL Institutional access: 87% overall, 71% EIFL Institutional access: 87% overall, 71% EIFL

• Using PubMed for Search: 40% overall, 24% EIFL Using PubMed for Search: 40% overall, 24% EIFL Using PubMed for Search: 40% overall, 24% EIFL Using PubMed for Search: 40% overall, 24% EIFL

• Publishing in a topical journal (OA): overall 26%, EIFL Publishing in a topical journal (OA): overall 26%, EIFL Publishing in a topical journal (OA): overall 26%, EIFL Publishing in a topical journal (OA): overall 26%, EIFL 15%15%15%15%

• Publishing in a topical journal (traditional): overall Publishing in a topical journal (traditional): overall Publishing in a topical journal (traditional): overall Publishing in a topical journal (traditional): overall 66%, EIFL 56%66%, EIFL 56%66%, EIFL 56%66%, EIFL 56%

• Using Twitter to tell about research: overall 27%, EIFL Using Twitter to tell about research: overall 27%, EIFL Using Twitter to tell about research: overall 27%, EIFL Using Twitter to tell about research: overall 27%, EIFL 18%18%18%18%

• Using EndNote for references: overall 36%, EIFL 27%Using EndNote for references: overall 36%, EIFL 27%Using EndNote for references: overall 36%, EIFL 27%Using EndNote for references: overall 36%, EIFL 27%

TOP TOOLS BY RESEARCH

AREA

DiscoveryDiscoveryDiscoveryDiscovery AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis WritingWritingWritingWriting PublicationPublicationPublicationPublication OutreachOutreachOutreachOutreach AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

Google

Scholar

Excel Word Topical

journal

(traditional

publisher)

Google

Scholar

Citations

Scopus

DiscoveryDiscoveryDiscoveryDiscovery AnalysisAnalysisAnalysisAnalysis WritingWritingWritingWriting PublicationPublicationPublicationPublication OutreachOutreachOutreachOutreach AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

Google

Scholar

Excel Word Topical

journal

(traditional

publisher)

Research

Gate

Web of

Science

EIFL resultsEIFL resultsEIFL resultsEIFL results

Overall resultsOverall resultsOverall resultsOverall results

The research cycle as a workflow:general requirements

available for your OS / browser

available in your language

low cost / free

easy to learn

high performance / speed

security / privacy

Inform Support Advise, advocate (Co-)shape policies

e.g.:Info on website, in

LibGuides etc.Offer training, Q&A

What is a good choice,

why, what is

important

Think with

institution, graduate

schools etc.

asks

for:

Knowledge,

organizing info

Communication

skills, expertise

Advocating priorities,

field-specific

knowledge; a vision

Authority, role

being accepted

Types /levels of research support

Experiment !

Experiment! - Tools used so farin the 101 innovations project

files searc

h

share scriptssurveys create csv link

tools

analyze

analyze analyze websiteshare

code

share data archive files share

data

visualize dashboar

d

data

paper

present outreac

h

present outreac

h

outreac

h

collaborate outreac

h

assess

http://101innovations.wordpress.com

[email protected]@[email protected]@eifl.net

[email protected]@[email protected]@eifl.net

EIF’s EIF’s EIF’s EIF’s twitertwitertwitertwiter handlehandlehandlehandle

101 innovations in scholarly communication - results from eifl partner countries

Education